You know the world of deceit. Telling the truth is a revolutionary act. It's the David Knight Show.
As a clock strikes thirteen, it's Friday, the thirtieth of January. You're of our Lord, twenty twenty six. Well, let's hope that this weekend we don't have an Iranian war started, because, as Jeryl Slenty pointed out, Trump loves to kick these things off on the weekend, and things are stacking up that way. There's a lot of things that he doesn't want us to see. One of the things he doesn't want us to see, that's what is going on in Minnesota.
There was a tremendous pushback against Jim Bouvard for a tweet that he put out comparing what happened in Minnesota to Ruby Ridge. And if you don't remember that history, I think you'll find this very interesting. Whether you remember it or not. There's a lot of details that many people have forgotten and a lot of parallels to what has happen in terms of abuse of federal law enforcement. We're also going to have the CEO of a company
called Securit who's going to join us. They have a different approach to gun safety and to gun personal security, and so we're going to talk about that. I think you'll find that very informative, a tactical approach to storing and using your gun. So we're going to have both of them, and we're going to begin with something I didn't get a chance to talk about yesterday, which is the new RICO lawsuit that has been filed against the American Academy of Pediatricians and the CDC.
That'll be right back.
Well, a couple of lawsuits have been filed by the Children's Health Defense and by another organization accusing the American Academy of Pediatricians as well as the CDC of conspiring on the vaccine schedule to the harm of children. Now, anybody who's been following this knows that that's the case, but it's a RICO lawsuit because it is a vast
fraudulent conspiracy. We've all heard the phrase that if you're in academia, you publish or you perish, except that the problem here is that if you do research and you publish that you get punished by the CDC and by the AAP. In January twenty first, the Children's Health Defense
filed a sweeping Racketeering, Influence and Corrupt Organization lawsuit against AAP. Now, these are the RICO statutes that are out there, and the RICO lawsuits are there, and I have spoken out against them in terms of tactics used by the government to basically punish people before they're found guilty. It's an issue, but in this particular case, this is a civil lawsuit.
It's a different type of thing, and I think this would be a very good case for the public because it's going to air a lot of this dirty criminal laundry from the pediatrician as well as the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies who are all a part of this. It's a vast criminal conspiracy. RICO statutes in general, they were there because they wanted to come after organized crime.
They found that organized crime had tremendous financial resources and they could hire the best lawyers who could get them out of these types of situations. So the response was to say, well, we are going to take their money first and then we'll have the trial. And so you would, you would make an indictment against them, but before they were found guilty, you basically punish them by taking away
their money. That evolved into civil asset forfeiture, which is basically not even coming up with an indictment or charge against people, but taking their property anyway charging the property with a crime. And so we've seen the abuse of RICO statute in many different areas. But again, I think that in this civil lawsuit like this, it does get to the heart of a racketeering and corrupt organization conspiracy
that is there. So what they're talking about here is the fact that you've had some of the people who are involved in this not on the CDC side, but on the other side. These are people who have had their medical licenses revoked because of research that they published. This is how you understand that it's a criminal organization. When they start trying to cover up the information. They
hide and conceal information. Whether it's about climate science or whether it's about the actions of the Department of Justice or whatever. The criminals are always going to lie and to cover up the data. That is a hallmark of all this stuff. One of the key things I think we want to focus on, though, is the way that
this actually works. We have seen many people who have been punished when they speak out against the vaccine schedule we have seen the difference the harm that is done in America versus other countries that don't have that, especially versus let's say, the Amish who don't follow this vaccine schedule. But we understand that it's about profit. We understand it's a collusion between the pharmaceutical industries and the CDC, one of the biggest sellers of vaccines, and that type of thing.
But even going back to the nineteen eighty six Act that Fauci shepherded through with Ronald Reagan, where they thick away liability for vaccines, for childhood vaccines, they were supposed to every two years produce safety results. So it came out of the var's database. They've not published a single one for nearly forty years now, and so that is
a part of the allegations. But in terms of how this actually operates, it's interesting to go back and look at what the immune system, what actually happens the immune system was so many of these vaccines given collectively in clusters. As they say on Malone News, it's immune dysregulation is a mechanism of how it harms children. Vaccines are intended to train the immune system, they say, except when they've
got a different agenda. It doesn't make any sense to say that the vaccines are going to train the immune system and then say that a disease is not going to train the immune system. This is a problem with virology. And as the CDC and the pharmaceutical companies are freaking out about people pushing back against the vaccine schedule, they blame it all on RK. Junior, except he's been saying
this for a very long time. The reality is that people have seen the lies and the fraud associated with the COVID so called pandemic, and that is really the heart of this. And one of the things that we saw were pronouncements by Fauci saying, you can't get immunity from having the disease, you have to get it from the vaccine or it doesn't work. Well, that doesn't make
any sense. If the purpose of the vaccine is to train your immune system to handle the real disease, well, if you have survived the real disease, then you don't need to have the vaccine. And so this is the argument that Ran Paul had with Fauci. But again, as I started looking at these inconsistencies, it's one of the reasons why I've arrived at the point where I'm no
longer anti vaccine, I'm anti virology. It's not a science, it's a tool of control and manipulation and propaganda because it doesn't.
Hold together at all.
However, if you look at the analogy of how this damages people in immune dysregulation, the example that malone malone dot News gives so is imagine the immune system as well organized beehive where each b knows its role. You can recognize, response, respond, and do various things. But vaccination would be essentially like kicking the beehive repeat while wearing a disguise. The hive doesn't get smarter, it gets chaotic,
it gets aggressive, it gets confused. Soon the bees start stinging anything that moves, including the queen, the worker bees, even the hive itself. And there's no assurance of targeted recognition, only widespread inflammation, panic, and self harm. And that's basically what happens with today's autoimmune epidemics that we see happening asthma, ezema, food allergies, type one diabetes, things like rheumatoid arthritis. This
is the mechanism that is happening. This shock to the immune system, confusing it, causing it to attack everything, even parts of your body. So the immune system is being artificially shaped in a way that many predisposed entire generations to chronic disease. Instead of immune education, we may be
witnessing immune miseducation with devastating lifelong consequences. And so it is the things that we see in terms of these adjuvants, these neurotoxins like aluminum and mercury, also known as thimerosol, which is still being put into the vaccines. I remember a decade ago when we were talking about thymerosol. Well, we don't put that in vaccines anymore. Well, yes they do. They still put it in a lot of the flu vaccines, the ones that are put together as a collective group.
Instead of a single dose, they have multiple doses. Those have thymerasol in them as a preservative, a known neurotoxin. Same thing with aluminum. And so if you remember, we were told by Alex Shones, the vaccine that Trump is doing is not like Bill Gates's vaccine.
It's just sugar water. And come on, you can.
Take a little bit of mercury and aluminum injected directly into your veins. That's not a problem. You can do that for Trump. Just to inject the sugar water kool aid, Well, that's not the way it works. Meanwhile, when we look at where they want to go with the RNA vaccines, we have seen Donald Trump on his very first day when he returned to the mRNA vaccines and he tried
to combine that. Wants to combine that as part of this Stargate operation that he had Larry Ellison give a presentation for what they want to do is combine AI with mRNA vaccines to create a new level of genetic code injections. And it's not just Donald Trump, it's also people like jd Vance and Vivate, the Snake Rama, Slimy. They are also investing in companies that do self amplifying mRNA.
They are giving doses, lethal doses of synthetic viral material containing artificial DNA sequences forced into animals using lipid nanoparticles, all the same things that we saw with the Trump shot that he is so proud of being the father of.
But they also include with us now electrical pulses. The aim of the research is to develop replican mRNA vaccines and treatment strategies, but alarmingly the work is being partially funded by the US Defense establishment, the usual suspects, and the purpose why would they want to self amplify these genetic code injections, Well, for the purpose of getting this
into people who are not taking the vaccine. They want to get it larger and have it spread without being able without having to wait for people to take the vaccine voluntarily. That is what is so subversive about all this. And of course again the connection to the US military industrial complex, which Trump at Davos just proudly admitted that
Operation Warp Speed was a military operation. In case you hadn't noticed by now, Well, we're going to take a quick break and when we come back, we're going to talk to the CEO of a company called secure It. And they have a different approach to securing your guns as well as making them actually more readily available to you in various places. And so it's a tactical approach
and I think you'll find it interesting. There's I think things that anybody who has a gun should think about as well, as you know, what do you train, how do you train with it? And where do you store it. These are all important issues for anybody who wants to try to defend themselves and their family. We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back.
Us defending the American dream. You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Joining us now is Tom Kubanak, and he is the CEO of a company called secure It. They have been a military contractor in the past, but now it's about eighty seven percent, he said, is a consumer market. It's a product that you might be interested in. If you've got a firearm, you want to be able to secure it, have a rapid access gun safe type of thing. But
we want to talk about Second Amendment issues. It's very timely, I think, with what is happening right now, and so we're going to talk about the gun culture, second Amendment in general. And so joining us now is Tom Kubanik. Thank you so much for joining us, sir.
Well, thank you very much for the opportunity. I'm looking forward to the conversation.
And well, it really has been over this last weekend people have been talking about Second Amendment rights and the gun culture from a variety at different angles. Is really put at front and center with the shooting in Minnesota, and so we've seen some surprising statements from people that are Republicans, people that are supposed to be allies to the to the gun issue, and it's like, you know,
you shouldn't be carrying a gun. Things that look like their perspective is that makes you instantly dangerous and a suspect. What do you think is the really the threat and what direction is it coming to us in terms of the individual liberty and the God given right of self defense? What's your perspective on that.
It's it's it's really there's always the forces. There are always the forces working to eliminate this right, and they will seize on every opportunity to steer and manipulate and whatever they can.
But as you said, there's a lot of very.
Much pro to A people who are now making statements that would call into question like wait a minute, what is your position? And I think a lot of that is driven, I mean a if they're politically connected, they want to be within a narrow realm of acceptable talking points without you know, alienating their base.
But it's yeah, the.
Second Amendment sits you know, as an icons as one of ours. It's a fundamental right of this country, of our of citizens. And that means it doesn't matter, you know, how bad a situations, it doesn't matter politically correct in buto the you know, the horrible nature of what unfolded is I mean, it's a travesty what happened. And I don't want to I can't get too detailed into the house and whis because you know, we don't know yet exactly they're going to dig into this thing and pull
it apart. But regardless of what happened, the Second Amendment is still stands for what it is, and we have the right to carry, we have a right to own and have firearms, and that right should have no bearing, no impact on the events that unfolded other than there was a gentleman who was exercising a right.
Yeah, we see this.
A lot of people talk about the fact that in order for the general public at large to understand what is involved here, they need to have some contact with guns. I don't know your background in terms of your contact with guns and how long that's been around, assuming that it's been a very long time, but a lot of people have hardened positions because they're not really a part of that culture. They don't know anything about guns, they
haven't used them. But we're living in a time where individual liberty is pretty much despised in all different areas. I mean, almost everybody has driven a car in the society, and yet we see a lot of contempt for the
right to be able to travel freely. We just had a lot of Republicans voted against the idea that we're going to stop this kill switch that's been mandated, you know, so they want to get a lot of Republicans who and pretty much nearly all the Democrats who said that the government should be able to shut down your car independent of you. We should have some device somehow that's going to be on the car that's going to decide whether or not you should be allowed to drive and
then shut it down. We've seen different things like that proposed for safety in terms of smart guns and stuff like that. Well, we're going to have a smart car that's going to decide whether or not you're.
Allowed to use it.
And so, even though people had a lot of experience driving cars, being passengers and cars and know the car culture here in America, there's still a real uneasiness about car ownership and operation. So of course we're going to see that with the gun culture, aren't we Absolutely.
It's you know, the car thing is really strange that the people are supporting this, and I'm surprised there's not a bigger outrage because no, there is. There is no right to own or drive a car in our constitution. However, the concept of a car didn't exist when everything was drafted, and we do have a right to move about in our country. We do have a right to you know, we're self directed. We have the freedom to do what we want to do as long as we're not violating
someone else's constitutional rights. So you could simply, very easily draw a conclusion that, you know, these rights we have. The car is simply a vehicle to exercise our rights. It's a very accepted it's the standard way with in which we Americans move around. The government's going to come in and say, oh wait, we're gonna be able to shut off a right. We're going to because you're not Yes, you're stopping a car, but you're shutting down someone's ability to move about freely.
And you can't argue that, well.
You still have that a right. You don't need a car, Well, in our world. I mean, anybody knows if all of a sudden, unless you live in a handful of big cities with public transportation, that you feel safe riding a cousin football case, well it is, but it's again. I had a son who lived in New York with the school there, and he was never going to own a car in New York.
It makes no sense.
But I live in a small town. And if you don't have a car, that is a that's that's a punished that's a sentence that you are now confined, you're not moving around.
It's just it's that.
Critical to our ability to move about freely in our country.
That's right.
And of course the drafters of the Constitution understood that the Bill Rights is not giving us rights, and our rights come from God. What they were doing was enumerating certain ones that they knew that we'd be attacked at first, But they made it clear that if we didn't mention, it doesn't mean that we don't have that right.
We haven't surrendered anything to you.
And that really is the case when we look at their intrusion into our personal papers. They don't have to send a they don't have to send an officer around to rummage through our desks anymore. They can do it remotely through our devices, and they can get into our personal papers and all these other things like that. So it really is we're the point where people don't understand why we have these prohibitions against actions by government infringing
on our individual liberty. And they don't value these things because they've always had them and they take them for granted. And we're on the cusp of losing so many of our liberties, I think, and so the Second Amendment is just one of those, and it's the one that they've been coming after for the longest time.
I think, I think you're I mean, it is, but the fact that it is, I don't know if the word is brilliantly worded, but it's so well worded in our constitution. Again and you said, this is not a right that is given. The right is is implied that the right is at birth. It simply says the government is not going to infringe on this right. So and
that is very carefully worded in our favor. And as you just mentioned, though, what we're seeing happening and a lot of people are unaware of it, it's everything else, it's this chipping away of our individuality and you know, working us towards what was a what did the new head of New York City about collectivism? This idea that we're not individuals, it's the collective and the collective whole will benefit if we have if the government has these powers.
Well, that's there's no.
World where I could ever imagine that somehow we benefit because the government has a massive power to limit our capabilities. I don't care what that capability is. It's just that's not who we are. We we have Again, they're not our leaders. They are simply our representatives. Yeah, and when they start acting like leaders and thinking they're in charge, that's that should be red flags going up all over the place.
And of course history shows just the opposite happens. You know, when you turn over all powers to the government. So you know, what do we do? What is real security? And how you know from your perspective in terms of what you make available to people, in terms of the organizations. Tell us a little bit about your corporation, how you got involved in it?
Well, secure it. We are the global leader and military weapons storage.
We build armories all over the world, and now we are in consumer products with fast access gun safes. Our methodology is a little different than in the consumer retail space. We're the only company that you know we come from a military background. We look at firearms and firearms security and safes and things like that from from the perspective of why does someone own a firearm, and that storage has to be conducive with why you own the gun.
To that end, you know, everything we produce is smaller, modular, lightweight, affordable and easy, easy to live with. The idea of a great, big, heavy, you know, metal box full of drywall in your basement is just it's it's there's a reason so many guns in America are unsecured. And I talk to a lot of people and they all have the same statements, Oh yeah, I've got a gun safe my basement, but for personal protection, I keep one next to my bed, I keep one here, I keep one there.
And yes, you have that right. But when you look at the data of the number of tragedies accidental that things that happen annually in this country that could be prevented very simply by simply providing a simple barrier between kids, between unwanted people and your firearms. It seems like a no brainer to us. And now you know we're at a point. With fast access gun safes, we can easily demonstrate that it's faster to have your gun locked in a fast access safe than to have it in a
closet leaning in the corner of a room. I can demonstrate that my access in my home. You you come into my home, you would never know I own firearms. Yet Yeah, I'm never more than two and a half seconds away from being armed if I may. If I'm at my closet or at one of my locations, I can be less than a second. I also, you know, as you owner of the company, I'm trying to prove
a point. I practice access. I make sure that I'm on top of what I'm doing, but that you know, one of our missions is to make sure every gun in America is properly secured, and proper is defined by out of sight. And you know, if you've got little kids in your home, they don't need to know. And once they're old enough to understand, well, then they should go to that. You should teach them, train them and
have them be very proficient with firearms. The more proficient people are a firearms the safer we all are.
So it's.
I agree with that.
Yeah, And we're the point where one of the reasons I went to talk to he is because we're at the point right now in our family. We have my son has got a young toddler, he's just starting to walk, and so we've got to make sure that we've got everything secure for him. Absolutely, And you know, he's had a very vulnerable age right now. Of course, you know, you never know what he's going to do with anything. He doesn't have the strength to pull the trigger, but
who knows what he would do. So we've got to have this stuff secured. And that's that's a key thing. That's absolutely key thing.
It is.
And I read and people send to me data all the time and informous stories about accidental access to firearms. And you know, with with young boys, it's a I don't want to sound I mean, it's more of a boy.
Thing than a girl thing.
Oh yeah, absolutely, you train sets.
That's right.
We had give hit a stick and he he ammasiately points a stick and shoots it.
That was right.
We had a friend who she was very much did not like the gun culture and everything, and she had a young son, and she said, I finally realized that it's just an eight. She said, Look, I kept guns away from give him any toy guns, and I look out and he's got a stick and he's going to poop you out in the car with a stick. So you know, they know, and uh, and they're gonna they're just wired for that. And so yeah, we have to make sure we take the proper precautions with all that.
That's a key part of it, isn't it.
It is?
And educate.
Mean, I get the argument not to have to have a gun unsecured, and it's an old argument, but it's based on old thinking. And when you look at what's available now, there's no reason not to. There's no reason not to have every single firearm properly secured. We've developed what we call the principles of decentralized storage, and that's really looking at your home the way I would look at a like a reactionary force in the Marine Corps. You're trying to defend a like a base or a
embassy security force. How are we going to locate and deploy fire in your weapons to make this place secure? Well, look at your home the same way, we publish a lot of information on this because the safest, most secure locations in your home to store and secure firearms are also the best locations to give you a tactical advantage in the event of a break in, a home invasion, or in some way that you're being threatened in your home or in your car.
That's very, very important.
Yeah, So, you know, what do we do to get people to to understand the gun culture and what kind of messaging do we have to worry about inside of the people who understand the importance of guns, But in terms of the way that we talk about it.
You know, I think intelligent conversation is better than rhetoric. And there's a lot of rhetoric on both sides of this conversation. And it's my hope that on the firearms side, on the side of two A, that people think a little bit and then speak and speak intelligently. You know, the Constitution is on our side. We don't need to
have a loud, difficult, yelling conversation about firearms. We simply need to express what the Constitution gives us and what we have and what it protects, and then just talk about the advantages of firearms ownership. And I think a big part of that advantage is training, is understanding simply buying a firearm does not make you more secure. Taking the time to get training, taking the time to practice that does. And I got real, I mean real quick story. I thought it was such a huge win for the
Second Amendment. We worked with a software developer several years ago. He was out of California, very liberal. In fact, he questioned working with us because we were in the firearms industry, and.
He was very up upfront about it.
He just said, guys, look, i'm a little uncomfortable. I'm gonna be honest with you. I'm not a support of the Second Amendment. I'm a little uncomfortable the idea of working for you.
Guys.
I simply said, look, I understand our mission is to make sure every gun in America is properly secured. If I achieved my mission, do you feel safer? And he agreed with me. So we started working together. And this was right when the defund police all started happening, and he was fairly close to some pretty bad events and he was nervous about it, and he went out and he bought a handgun and he talked about it. I said, look, getting the handgun is not going.
To help you. You need to take good.
Training, find a good instructor, find when you're comfortable with, work with them on a fairly regular basis for the first couple of months. You need to make sure if you're going to own a firearm, you get to the range at least once a month. And he said it's a commitment. And he said okay, and was fascinating. Months later he called me he said, Tom, I got to tell you something.
I love this.
I'm not shooting, he's now shooting. He was getting into a class. Then he was joining a club where they were doing competition handgun competitions. About four months into this he called me. He said, Tom, I'm going to buy an AAR fifteen.
And I said, really, he.
Goes, I just I'm watching, you know what these guys can do with the rifles, as it's the safest gun that I can own in my home, which I agree with, properly owned, properly trained a person at the air fifteen. There's no safer rifle in America. And he is a ultraliberal computer programmer guy who now is as a second Amendment supporter, and I just watched it unfold. He felt threatened,
he felt alone. His vision that law enforcement is there to protect me fell apart in the defund the defund police mode, and all of a sudden, he realized, the only thing keeping me safe is luck that they don't happen to come the mob in the street doesn't happen to come into my home. And he viewed it was kind of a wake up call for him, and all of a sudden, he did the proper steps, and I commend him for doing it properly. He now owns firearms. He's in a very good position to defend himself and
his neighbors. I'm sure his friends and his groups have no idea he fire arms, but it's.
People have to think about that, and they have to I've interviewed a guy a couple of times from South Africa and he was a missionary and he had considraencies. I don't think I should own a firearm, and you know, I don't have any interest. I don't think I could
shoot somebody or shoot at somebody. And yet there was a lot of violence in South Africa at the time, and so he said he saw people that were innocent being shot, and he said, I realized then that I have an obligation to protect innocent life, including my own. And so he got a gun and he trained on it, and he only had a five shot revolver, and he was attending a very large church, over a thousand people,
and he was just visiting it. But they said later on during truth and Reconciliation that they had picked that church because they didn't figure anybody would be armed. They came in the side door throwing grenades and shooting the place up of fully automatic weapons. He's way in the back with just the revolver, but I'm going to try. So he takes a shot, and he thinks, I'm not
going to hit anything with that. So he ran out the side and took some shots from there, and they ran off, and they said later on they thought there were being attacked from multiple angles. He didn't realize it, but his first shot actually hit one of these guys, and so you never know in a situation like that. Here's one guy with a revolver, five shot evolver, and he was able to defend these people. Now when they
came in throwing grenades and firing automatic weapons. The immediately killed about fifty people, but it could have been everybody. They were going to kill everyone in that church, and he was able to defend that off. So people have to go through these decisions again. He had to think about this as like, would I be morally justified to do this in defense of innocent life? And he got the right decision and he learned how to use it as well.
Yeah, and he had a result.
It's I always tell people, and I talked to a lot of a lot of people on firearms ownership, and I say, the decision to buy your first firearm should be a life altering decision. You're if you're going to own a firearm which you're going to use actively use or use for home defense, for personal defense, You're going to change your lifestyle going forward. If you're going to carry. If your decision is to conceal carry a firearm, you will be shooting on a regular basis for the rest
of your life. I'm very busy executive. I travel a lot, and you know I have concealed carry permit, I have all the proper everything you need. But there's many times in my life I do not carry a firearm because if I'm not actively training. For me, it's about decision making and if I'm if I've gone a long stint where I have not been training, not been shooting, I will I'll have it in a backpack, but I will not carry on body because I'm not in a position
to execute that responsibility at that time. That's a decision I make, and some people say I'm nuts, but just that's just the way I do it. And it also encourages me to make sure I block out time to work with instructors, to get the reps in, to just do everything required. You know, my background was a musician, and we practice and rehearsal, practice and rehearsal on It's showtime. Doesn't matter if you're nervous, it's showtime.
That you execute.
It's the same.
It's the same thing against the same challenges. It's just you've got deadly force. You've got to have it right.
That's a great way to look at it. Yeah, my son says, after the guy gets one, he uses it on the range for a while, he realizes it isn't the scary, uncontrollable monster that he thought it was. You know, so you start to get to realize what it really is.
It's a tool.
As you point out, you need to be experienced in the use of that tool, needs to be kind of second nature. You know, there's a lot of different attacks that are coming at us in a lot of different ways.
And of course, I.
Don't know if you saw this or not, but the whole three D gun printer thing, which they really are upset about. There's a new law that's being pushed out in Washington and what they're trying to do is even though this has been upheld as a kind of a combination of the First Amendment and the Second Amendment, the code for printing gun parts was held to be protected by the First Amendment by courts. It was challenged by
Cody Wilson, and they won that fight. So now the idea of the state government in Washington State is to we're going to intimidate this. We're going to do it as a partnership with the printer manufacturers. So in order for them to be able to sell the printer manufacturer, they're going to have to set up a mechanism whereby we can prohibit the printing of anything. And when the guy started talking about this, this guy is a three D printer guy, and he's not really focused necessarily on
just printing guns. But when he talked about it, everybody thought, oh, you're just talking about printing guns, and we should shut that down. He says, no, this is about everything. He says, if you're a farmer and you want to print a three D part for your tractor, and John Deere says, no, that belongs to us. They can prohibit that as well. And so when we look at this, there's this massive
interconnection of freedoms. And once we start to pick and choose and micromanage which freedoms are going to be exercised and how they're going to be exercised, we all wind up losing everything in the end, don't we.
I think.
So it's I find the three D printing. I actually follow quite a bit of that at I'm fascinated by the technology. I restore old cars as one of my that's my therapy. And I've always talked to you about there's gonna come a time where you don't buy parts, you buy the drawing and you simply print the parts. Yeah, and that's that's a long ways down. But printers are getting so inexpensive and the technology is getting so cheap, but it's it is new.
And when there's so.
Many people, such a high percentage of our population that is afraid of change, and it doesn't matter what the change is, you see resistance to change.
Yet every morning it's a new day.
Every day.
This you know, the secondhand is moving and every moment, every every second goes by. Things are changing and advancing. We should embrace this technology. It's there's so much good.
You're talking about our parts, you know, Jay Leno has been doing that for a while because he's got these very old car cars that he's got and nobody's making any parts for them. We're going to see that as well for much newer parts because it'll either be the situation and where there's not enough of them out there. Maybe the government might even prohibit it because they don't want you driving the old cars that aren't completely connected to their control. So that is also another aspect for
people to think about. It all comes to the down to the point where you know, they always want to know everything that we're doing, might manage everything that we're doing, and centralized control of everything, and that's seems to be the current thread of where everything seems to go and that's where the stuff has been coming from for the longest time for firearms, you know, centralized and control of firearms from Washington and then start shutting them down one by one.
Yeah, it's I'm surprised some of the things that have happened recently.
I live in New York State.
We have the safe fact where now I have to do a background check, a state background check to buy ammunition. I don't see. I don't see how this has not been thrown out yet. I'm not sure it's been adjudicated. It's a crazy rule. I'm limited in terms of magazine size. I've I've got my limits. There's a list of guns that I simply cannot own in the state. And it's an annoyance. I mean it's for me when I look at home defense, the actual firearm that I would use
to defend myself I can legally own. Can I own a thirty round magazine?
I cannot.
It's a ten round magazine, So that that changes a little bit of the aspect of of how you use it.
But is there a limit on how many magazines you can eat? Right now? They just want somebody change out to another one.
But it's it's again, it doesn't matter what the rule is, it's that there there's a lot of people within our government that just they're going to chip away at any anything they can do, and it's just a big pile of dirt of freedom in the middle of this room, and any bit they can pull into their little bucket and eliminate, they're going to do it. And sometimes I've seen people like Tom, why why are you taking on this fight? This is really stupid, I said. You know,
I hate to use the term slippery slope. That's overused, but yes, sometimes you fight. You fight so hard for grains of sand because you're you're stopping something that's going to be that could become a tidal wave. And a lot of people, I mean, you see it just across across the world. A lot of people don't react until it hits them personally.
At that point, they've missed their window.
That's right.
Well, it's like Himmingway said, you know the guy who went bankrupt that is very rich, that's had had that happen. He said, Gradually, then suddenly that's why we have that analogy of a slippery slope. You know, that's what happens at first, it's just a short little thing, but then it really picks up speed and it accelerates. If you don't stop the trend, if you don't see the trend that's coming.
No, you can stop a car rolling down hill. If the brakes don't work and the car is just starting to move, you can stand behind it and stop it. Once it's going five miles an hour, you better get out of the.
Way it's going.
And that's you know, it's it's Uh. We've done a good job of stopping these freight trains.
I really, I mean we've.
I believe society has done a good job. And I think the defund police was a huge as much as it just shocked me what was happening. There were more two A supporters created when those when those laws, there was those I mean laws, it's those those sentiments, Those things are being pushed forward in cities like Minneapolis, which I used to do a lot of business. There was
a beautiful city, beautiful downtown. It's never going to recover, and there's a lot of people that live there that for the first time in their lives woke up saying there's nothing preventing chaos from walking into my apartment or my condor or my home except luck.
And I hated.
I hate to see things like that happen to drive support for what I believe in is just the simplest way and the best way to live. But we're at another point now where you know Trump is a lightning rod. Like him, he is a lightning rod personality, and there are people that will go against the Second Amendment just to smake just just because he's on that side. I think it's very short, a very narrow.
Focus, and he doesn't He's not very comfortable himself with it either, because he's never had any experience. I saw the interview with Scott Besson and that really got my, uh, got my attention over the weekend where he said to Jonathan Carl his SoundBite that he came prepared to talk about was do you go to a protest with a gun?
You know?
Do you do you go to a protest? I kept asking a question over going and.
He kind of got Jonathan Carl to back, now, well, I haven't really covered protest as a reporter, and no, I haven't carried a gun either. And I thought about that. I thought, I bet Scott Besson hasn't carried one. Either because he's got an army of people to protect him all the time that are armed. That was before he got into government, even he was somebody who was very very wealthy with George Soros, and he's got his own army bodyguards who are armed to protect him.
He doesn't need that.
And so you have people who grow up in or live in that kind of a scenario. They don't see the need for self defense because they've got an army of paid people who do it for them. And they really can't sympathize with what we're doing, especially if they're coming from New York. They spent all their life in New York and they ever touched the gun. They really don't really understand what's going on with it.
And they never mean having to show a force the guards around you. It's not just that you're protected, it's that you'll never even see it. Because the bad characters I always equate them to like bullies in school. The bad guys aren't looking for a fight. They're looking for a pushover, and any any bit of resistance perceived or otherwise, they're going to move on. They're not you know, if they believe for a minute that you might have a firearm.
They're not going to bother you.
Yeah, they're gonna look, They're gonna look. They want the easiest target they're looking for. You know, all these the looking for pushovers. And I talk about home defense, and I said, guys, all you've got to do is make your home look a little more secure than the next house down the street, because the robbers, the burglars are going to go for the easiest target. And that happens in personal safety when you're looking at personal threats against you.
You know, I just tell you just walk, walk like you mean it. When you're walking through an area that you're a little concerned to stand up tall bull walk with so much purpose, like you're ready to just take on the world. Because a bad character is going to look and say, I don't know who that is.
But again, if you're.
Walking with your shoulders down, slow, your head down, kind of plodding along, you just look. I mean, you look like an easy mark. Sometimes that's a difference.
And the you're the weak animal on the edge of the herd right there.
Absolutely, most people I know that shoot and train and carry fire firearms, you can just look at them and you're not.
Going to mess with them.
They're not gonna draw them.
They're never gonna be in a situation to draw the firearm because the fight's not coming to them. The fight's going to the weak character. So, you know, the more we can do to get people who feel or may feel vulnerable to just pause. You don't need to go out and buy a firearm. Just go to a training center and take a class. They will walk you through everything. They'll provide you with a firearm to try and get good instruction. Do it properly and see how you feel.
See if it's for you. You know it's well, tell us a little bit about your products.
You're free to do a commercial here.
Tell us a little bit, tell us a little bit about how these things operate, and you know what your design objectives are for it. And now they maybe or I've seen a lot of these, I don't know if that's your product or not. That you wouldn't know that that's the safe. You know, it looks like a bookshelf or something like that.
Well, ours ours do look like safes. And what we do we take twenty five years of building military armories into a line of consumer products. Our safes are smaller and they're lightweight, and that's one of the biggest points of difference of US gun safes are big heavy boxes because they believe when people see heavy, they think security. There's nothing. Weight has nothing to do with security. Gun safes are breached with a circular saw and a carbide blade.
If you look at any bit of crime data, they simply ignore the locks. They cut a hole in the side of the safe. My safes are some you know, the same thing can happen, but our safes are small, modular, shallow, designed to go into closets, designed to go into discrete locations. And then we store firearms per military principles, where it's straight line access to every firearm. You open the door of my safe and you've got straight line one arm,
one gun. You're never digging through guns. Everything is. You can glance at the safe, you know everything's there. And we also integrate gun and gear storage. You know, it's a very modular, scalable system. Our gun safes in the military are referred to as the Lego and the Tetris rack because the armors just start at the bottom of each one and just build like Legos. They build exactly what they need in every single set, every single cabinet
to solve their problem. Our consumer products do the same thing. Our most recent breakthrough is what we call HsfA locking, High Stress Fast Access Locking. We were hosting a training event just to learn more about access, to learn more about scenarios that unfold, and we were doing force on force training in a shootouse where we were simulating home invasions and office brake ins, and we determine when you
trigger someone into fight or flight. These guys are all experienced shooters, but we could trigger them into that panic mode. They could not open a simple gun safe the buttons they could because when you go fight or flight, you lose find motor skills, you develop tunnel vision, your cognitive abilities reduced. So I got back from that event and a day later I had this new lock design drawn up. Within six months, it was incorporated across our entire line and it's a locking solution.
It's a very simple.
Very secure, but it's designed to give you the fastest possible access when you're under a very high stress, like if somebody home invasion, You've got a second and a half two seconds, maybe somebody's shooting at you, you're in panic mode. Our locking solution puts you in a position to get retrieve your fire arm very quickly and defend yourself.
That's the newest thing we've done.
So how does how does it open up?
It's just a it's a it's a push push button locks which releases the safe, and simply it's a handle.
You just turn a handle open the door.
Ergonomically, we position all the guns so that and we have videos on how to set up your safe fastest possible access, whether it's a rifle or a handgun. And it positions a firearm, so I retrieve the firearm, I retrieve it. Like for me, if it's an air fifteen, left hand on grip, it comes up and in a one simple motion, I'm in a ready position to defend myself with handguns. The door access thing is a little different. We're gonna you're positioning things so the safe pops open.
When the firearm comes out of the safe, you are in a low ready position or high ready, depending on the location of the safe. But it's we're the only company that really thinks about the ergonomics and the actual flow of what people are doing when they need to
access a firearm very very quickly. So we really, And this goes back to our military, working with the Marine Corps, the reaction force teams, working with special forces, the high speed teams, where everything has to be seconds everything, and it has to be you know, the old slowest, smooth, smooth as fast.
We follow that idea that the simplest path is usually the best.
There's there's just it's what we do is very simple. It's just nobody in firearm storage ever thought about it.
Gun saves.
Nothing wrong with gun saves. They're just all the same. It's a big box full a little wus and you pack all your guns in there. We also do not we do not offer fire ratings on our core products. Fire ratings are nonsense.
It's get it out quickly, we quickly. If there's a fire, you can get it out.
So the whole fire rating system, the whole fire rating system is not honest. It's it really, I've done it. I posted a lot on this. It is a horribly flawed system. No, your guns will not survive in a hot fire.
They won't.
And even if they look okay, you'll never know how hot they got. Your hardened steels not hard, and your annealed barrel may not be annealed, you're never gonna shoot them again. We do make one. We call it the True Safe. It's a double walled, cement filled safe. We make it to prove a point that if you want fire safety, fire capacity, fire rating, this is what it takes.
It's a beast. It's it's just under two thousand pounds.
When you buy it from us, we install it, We send a crew, they install it. You're never gonna move this thing. Do people need it? No, We made it to prove a point. We do sell, and they're very popular with coin collectors, we find, but we do sell a handful.
Of them a month.
But really we made it just to show the gun industry the world this.
Is what a fire rating is. This is what it takes.
But you don't need a fire rating. The risk of your home burning down is so rare that you know, going through all that nonsense and all that weight, and all the materials they use are all banned from use in armor of the dry wall, the carpeting, the adhesives is all very corrosive.
You know.
The reason the industry sells millions of dollars of anti corrosion products because the traditional gun safe is very corrosive. You know, all of our products our civilians are all made to the same military standards, and we don't recommend using any of those products. You simply clean your guns properly, You're never going to corrode. It's and that's kind of you know, our whole position in the consumer market. We are the I don't want to say red headed step child,
but we're the guys. We're the outlier. We're the disruptive force in the industry trying to drive We're trying to change an industry that's just been doing the same thing for sixty five years.
Which your perspective is very different.
You're looking at this is how do I store this so I can get quick access to it? Instead of you know, how do I make this thing? It was standout hurricane and a fire and all the rest of the stuff.
You know.
And now let me ask you, how do you go from a locked standpoint to being able to open it quickly? You're talking about pushing a button and getting in there.
Yes, okay, so our locks are all we I mean, we have biometrics within our locks, but we would never ever recommend use of a bi like a push you know, biometric fingerprint readers. Those are for convenience only because if your hands are wet, it won't open. Your hands are dirty, it won't open. If you're wearing gloves, it won't open. We want everybody to use the keypad.
Again.
Our fast access keypads worked very well. But when you buy my safe, if you've got to under the bed safe for a shotgun, every night when you go to bed, turn the lights off, you're going to reach down quietly and smoothly, do your combination, open the safe and close it, go to bed. You're gonna do that every night for the first thirty six nights, and.
Then you're gonna do it every week.
And what you're doing is you're building muscle memory, just like a musician playing an instrument. And when you do that, once you go thirty six days, you've now ingrained that you've hardwired, that you're subconscious regardless of your state, you're gonna open that safe incredibly quickly and very smoothly. So that's you know, we have a whole curriculum of train.
With your safe.
People with handguns.
Always they practice their dry fire routines, they practice their draw. If you're actively if you conceal carry. If you're into this, you know, part of the Second Amendment, you should be every morning doing your dry fire routines. I sit on a on a slack line balancing just for added added uh, I don't know, just just a workout thing. And I do dry fire drills every morning, and I've been doing that for years because that's it's just getting those reps
and it's so important. Same thing with my locking system is every time you go to if you've got a small safe in your closet by your front door, which is a great location in store firearms, every time I pull a coat out to just reach in, not even looking, I can open up that safe and remove a firearm in less than a second with my eyes closed, because
I've done it probably two thousand times. And that's that's kind of how we look at the whole thing is the you know, the gun safe industry has as safe as a passive piece of equipment that's in your basement that you go to after your day is done with training or hunting or whatever you're doing. We look at firearm storage as integral to the process of defending your home, the process of defending your life. So we want that access that using that lock to be part of your process.
It's not the holster in.
Other words, exactly, that's the term. We've used a wholester for your home and and that's how we look at it. The other side of our system is gun and gear storage, the amount of gear, and this happened at the military first. You know, we got volved with the military because they were fielding so much high value gear their armories just couldn't hold it. And part of our our system is that ability to store gear behind above around with your firearms in a very organized manner. So we have a
real advantage our systems. When you open the doors up of a safe that's really really decked out and take a picture of it, everybody.
Goes, holy cow, that looks good.
And that's you know, our We made Ink Magazine's fastest growing companies in America twice in three years and we never we never spent any money on advertising.
It was all word of mouth.
There was just photographs of what people were doing with our system and it just went crazy. So it's a I think we're winning this idea that of you know, for what we do, storage and security are integral to safety, and you know, home defense.
And that really is the vulnerability that we have, you know, we have if people don't use the firearms reasonably, then that opens us up to the attack on firearm ownership from the safety standpoint. So part of preserving the Second Amendment is preserving your life and preserving the safe storage of these items as well.
Wasn't it absolutely if we always say, if every firearm in America was properly secured, would we be fighting so hard to the Second Amendment? Because you're going to eliminate so many what I call them stupid, so many the accidental the things you read about you just you just you know, your roll your eyes, you drop your head.
It's a tragedy. We're just like, my god, it was so easy to prevent that.
Yes, it's we live at a time now where there should never be a child getting access to a firearm, or a friend at a party who's drunk, or you know, there's there's it's real easy now to keep firearms secured yet very very available to the to the authorized person.
Yes, and of course, you know we see elements of this when it comes to onmobiles as well, right, and you know when people don't use automobiles responsibly. Then that puts all of us in a position of having our rights stripped away with that. And of course it says so many people don't have experience with firearms at all, like they do with cars. Whenever they see something like that, they think that that is characteristic of everybody rather than
just one irresponsible person. So it's really important for you personally, and it's important for us collectively to protect the Second Amendment. But the key thing is for your own use. And so I really like the idea that you've got that it's another holster that's there that you train with it to be able to open up very quickly. That's a great idea. Again, the company is yes, go ahead, Sorry, it's Secure Tactical.
You know, we're working hard to get this message out. We're slowly winning it. It's just not easy, you know. We're trying to change the way people think and that takes time.
It just does.
But we're slow we're slowly winning this war.
Yes, yes, and so the company, again, folks, is secure It.
What is your website? Is it secure?
Secure?
Yes?
Secure gun Storage dot Com, Secure Tacticals, our military site.
These google the words secure it. We're all over the web.
That's great, Thank you so much. Fascinating story, and we'll be looking at it ourselves, I'm sure. So thank you very much, Tom, I appreciate Tom.
Thank you.
And secure it gun Storage, thank you so much for joining us. All right, thank you, thank you. And by the way, I should mention that they don't sell these in the stores because as you heard, they've got a lot of training information on the site and that really does show how to use the product, how to train with the product. So they're very much integrated into an online presentation. So just check out the website. You can find them online if you look for secure it it.
Making Sense common again you're listening to the David Knight Show.
Joining us now is James Bovard. You can find him at Jim Bovard dot com. He writes for a variety of outlets and has for many many years. He is a libertarian, or we could say a classical liberal, because that's something that Steven Miller's wife doesn't seem to understand. That's the same thing as there's a lot of things that they don't understand, are there, Jim. But he had a very interesting op ed piece on miss dot org.
The latest federal killing in Minnesota echoes Ruby Ridge, and I think he's really right and in a lot of different ways when we talk about how it is similar to that.
You know, if.
You're around at that point in time, that should be etched indelibly into your memory what happens Ruby Ridge and Branch Davidians and things like that. But you know, even at that time, a lot of people were not really following that very closely. And of some of the people who were following it, I think they've forgotten the details of it. They certainly have forgotten the lessons of it, because there are a lot of parallels here in this and we need to learn those lessons so we can
stop repeating these things over and over again. Thank you for joining us, Jim.
Hey, thanks very much for having me on. Thanks and thanks for not forgetting about Ruby Ridge.
How could I It's amazing.
Gary Spence did a great job in that trial, and again what an interesting character he is in terms of defending Randy and well not defending him, but in terms of getting some compensation for him. But you can never compensate for really for what he lost. Let's talk a little bit about the parallels, but tell us you put up a tweet that really went viral about this, which is the basis of your article. I guess that's why
you decided to write the article. You had a lot of people take exception to you, drawing parallels exception.
Yeah, I mean, you know, with their pitchforks and torses. Yes, yeah, it was. It was interesting if you go back to folks who were politically conscious in the nineteen nineties, people who were skeptical about government power, both liberals and conservatives and libertarians, Ruby Ridge was a rallying cry for what happens when the government is off a leash and when
federal agents have a license to kill. As a federal judge, Alice Kozinski said, the Ruby Ridge case you had, the FBI snipers were given a basically a double O seven license to go out and kill people. Yeah, the basic rules of engagement where if you see the adult meals outside the cabin, kill them, you know, no warning or anything. Even though they had never fired upon the federal Uh, they never fired upon the FBI.
Sou But when we've seen that over and over again, I talked about how apparently with this absolute immunity, these people are all double O sevens. I said, I don't know, maybe that refers to their I Q.
Well, I had that impression. I was wondering about that. With some of the feedback I was getting. It was it was interesting to see the absolute instant hatred uh for for drawing a parallel between what happened at Ruby Ridge and the killing of the Alex Preddy in Minneapolis last Saturday.
Yeah, and it was.
It was funny. It's been a while since I since I had that much visibility on Twitter, and it's interesting how the standard insults have changed, because now it just like about forty percent of the response it were just like you were retard, Yeah exactly, or okay, Boomer, I'm thinking, is this the best you can do? Is this the best deprecation you have in your arsenal? You were retard?
Then you kind of go back and forth with these people, and then they started flinging the airport in every direction, and you know, I like George Carlin, there's a time and a place for the airport. It can be effective. But when you're just kind of when this is all you have, you.
Know, well, they don't even know what deprecation is that to liok that up if they could even start.
Yeah yeah, well so yeah so most so the most common retort was retard and the second most common report was boomer Yeah.
That's it, yeah, boomer yeah.
And I mean, okay, so I know how to read.
You know.
There was yeah, there was. There was some guy who was a who kept attacking me and he was making such in your comments. I finally said, you know, maybe what we need is go fundb drive to get you hooked on phonics, you to get your software program. And didn't seem to make him happy. So, you know, I tried.
I tried. There were there were other folks. I said, you know, good luck with your grammar, you know, because they were just if you're gonna call someone a retard, you should be able to spell your entire sentence correctly, you know, otherwise it kind of boomerangs. You know, it's not a good look you to them.
Okay, boomerang.
There you go.
So what was the tweet? What exactly did you say in the tweet?
Oh, that's a good question. Let me pull it up here. I've got this reopened. It was. It was interesting, there was I had at first first commented on the on the Ruby Ridge thing. Uh, first parallel on late Saturday, and then I was getting so much hostile feedback. Uh, so so what I did? Uh, this is an article in the parallels. In both cases, the Feds suppress evidence, raisingly lied about what happened, exaggerated the threat to federal agents,
and offered bizarre justifications for their killings. Yeah, and that is let's see. Yeah, and we.
Start out we could add to the on my list. I made a similar list like that. Uh, the needlessly aggressive use of force, which seems to be a hallmark of government anymore.
Yeah, and that was that was a point you know that I made a Knee Macy's article on how the late is killing Uh echo Ruby Ridge. But it's interesting because you have so many people who are conservatives who understood after January sixth, twenty twenty one, after the Biden posts came in and vilified everyone, every Trump's supporter who'd been in the same zip code as the US capital right and tried to ruin your lives. And you had the FBI formally classifying all these January sixth cases, eight
hundred or more of them as terrorism cases. That's right, because someone walked into a government building.
Yeah, I talked about that.
In one particular, I think one of the most egregious ones I saw was you had a couple of elderly guys that were there and they had their middle aged one of them middle aged son, and they walk up the doors are open going into the Capitol building and they got a couple of cops and they said, is there a restroom'r in here somewhere? Yeah, sure, go round here, go in and use the restroom. And that's all they did.
They come back out and as they're getting ready to go back out the same way they came in, as a female cop and she says, no, no, no, go this way. She's pointing, trying to get them to go onto the floor of the Capitol building, trying to trap them. And they did charge them, because that's why that came out, was because they actually wound up charging them.
With that.
You would think that they would have a memory of that and a perspective of it that they've got like the memory of.
A fruit fly. It's absolutely amazing they don't. They can't.
They can't understand these different principles and the similarities that are there. And that's a big part of it. It's a big part of the of the group think that's there. The tribalism that is there is that they're going to go through with a fine tooth comb and they're going to identify how this person over here was a bad person. We've got to add hominem attack and they're not part
of our tribe. So it was justified. That's basically when you peel back all the layers of this onion, that's what it really gets down to when you see this this rabid response that I've seen from a lot of people on social media.
Yeah, it goes back to what historian Henry Adams said one hundred years ago. Politics has always been the systematic organization of hatreds, and it was it was it was intriguing to see the push button hatred after the after the protester got killed. Uh, and to see and it was funny because I was posting stuff on Facebook and then on there on Twitter, and so late on Saturday, I said, well, you know, you know, there was a
there was a TV station there in Minneapolis. I think it might have been an ABC station, and said that that actually, if you look at the video, it looks like the federal agent had taken away the guy's gun before he was shot, and oh my god, you think I had just you know, made the biggest heresy in the world because the outrage. How could anybody say that? And it was like I was, it was like I
was trying. It was almost like we were supposed to think the federal agents had somehow performed a miracle by saving everybody from getting shot by this guy, Like it was that Stephen Miller or was that Bobino. I think it was Bobino who said the agents did a really good job because they stopped this guy from killing killing police. Yeah, and I'm thinking by that standard, they could kill everybody.
The demonstrations, Well, you know, it really has.
That's one of the things I remember most about Ruby Ridge and then about Waco as well, was how people lined up as to whether or not they liked David Koresh and his group. If they didn't like him, oh yeah, do whatever you want to to him. You know, I'm a Christian, and so I looked at that and I saw these people said, well, you know, we don't like this guy. We think he's His theology is avran and they do weird things in their church and stuff. So yeah, yeah,
go after this guy, I'm not part of it. I don't want to be associated with them, and so they they basically were cheering the incineration of men, women and children.
Is like, what in the world is going on here?
But of course you see that now over and over again, like you point out the systematic organization of hatred, you know, which is yeah, And it was.
The same thing with the Ruby Ridge. The part of what happened is the FEDS were very quick to vilify, vilify their victims, being the Randy Weaveman his wife. Primarily they had some bad ideas, and in the writing that I did about it, I was very careful not to say, well, you know, maybe they've got a point. No, no, no, no, I mean bad ideas. But then there are a couple people out there who think that I have bad ideas.
That's right, So you know, you know, I don't want to give the FEDS a license to kill people with bad ideas.
But this is what what a lot of the.
People who want want the government to fight extremism, This is what it turns out to be. People have different ideas than you do. He said, well, you know, got to take him out, you know, I mean it's it's hard. It's hard to have a free speech if someone's hateful, and what's the difference definition of hateful? Disagrees with me? So, but we've seen that ever since the Cleton administration.
So, and of course, you know, when we look at the way people responded first to the killing of Renee Good, what I noticed was the MAGA people came out said, oh, she's LGBT and she was part of an organization that got some so US money or whatever. And it's like, okay, well, you do realize Scott Bessett is a part of that LGBT movement, and he do realize he got a lot of sorous money, didn't He as a partner with the
guy for a long time. And yet you know they're completely blind to that because now this guy is he's whitewashed, he's baptized or whatever because Trump picked him and he's
working with Trump, and the same type of stuff. If you equated Ashley Babbitt to Renee Good, which I think was a good comparison because they were both shot at point blank range when they were no threat to anyone, and yet they came back and it said, yeah, but look, you know she's I don't like what she did with this or what she says about that, I don't like her lifestyle or whatever. So again it's the demonization of
this kind of thing. And now we've seen it. They kept digging and digging and pick a lot longer for them to find something on Alex pretty but what they were able to find on him was a BBC video where he got into a fight with some Border Patrol agents or something like that. I don't know if you've seen that or not. That went viral yesterday. Yeah, I
haven't watched all of it, but I've seen it. But yeah, so here's the tail light out and it's like, okay, but they didn't kill him that day, and would that justify him being killed that day even and he wasn't doing that the day that.
He was killed. It wasn't doing anything like that.
Yeah, there was a story that I wrote that came out on the day before he was shot. Said, look, I mean, you have protests, you're going to have assholes because there's almost always people who behaved like assholes of protests.
And the same thing. If you've got police, you're also going to have all that's true.
That's true. So there's there's an interesting point here on the looking at the at what Alex pretty did before he got shot. So we don't know the names of the two federal agents who shot and killed him, and I would be very interested to see what their records were, if they had a record of abusive force, or if they had shot somebody else before.
Or you know, or if they were new hires.
Yeah. So, I mean, this is this is a real big This is something which comes up in in big cities if some cops shoot someone, especially if the cop shot people before, and especially if there was any kind of pattern to the cops killings or shootings. This is this is very germane to make any kind of judgment. But the Trump people have decided we have no right. I mean, I don't know when or how federal agents got their right to kill anonymously.
Yeah, that's right, that's right.
But this is this is this is what it is at this point, and it's it's funny, but I mean, it's it's kind of a variation of what we saw a couple of months ago. There was a lot of controversy initially about how the how our War Department had done a second hit on the survivors out there near Venezuela, and you know it was there was video of that killing, and I guess it was being seen on Capitol Hill.
Then all of a sudden, our Secretary of War he sits comes out of well, of course we can't make that publicus's confidential has got this and that it's like, you know, so it's a license to kill.
Yeah.
But the thing is, you know, he put out and bragged about their shots against these boats in the past, and I said that about the this is I think wasn't the circle back where they killed the shipwrecked people. I think that was the very first strike they did. And I said, of the video that he put out proudly, I said, that's criminal. That's an act of war. They didn't interdict that there's there's clearly processes for them to check people if they suspect them of being drug dealers.
And again, I don't agree with any of the war on.
Drug stuff, but they have their own rules about that and they violated all the rules.
Well, and it's it's it's it's interesting trying to figure out if there's laws or you know, constitutional rights that the Trump administration is going to recognize and uphold.
Yeah for anything.
Yeah, I mean, because it's you know, trying to understand what went down in minneapp list. I mean, it's it's amazing that the first response by the DHS, by Bovino and people like that was like, well, people got no right to know the names that we're going to shift them out of the states so they can't be held legally libel by Minnesota officials. It's it's like, where did they get the right to kill in Minnesota? I mean, this is this is this is not a recognized federal right.
But there again, it goes back to Ruby Ridge. And you had the FBI sniper who killed the mother holding her baby by the cabin door.
And I'll never forget his name.
Uchi, And and you had the Janet Reno and the Clinton Just Apartment and the Clinton President Clinton moving hell in high Water to block any prosecution by the state of Idaho of the FBI sniper even though a confidential Just Apartment report Art said that his shot that killed Vicky Weaver was totally illegal and unjustified.
That's right.
Yeah, recount some of the details about Ruby Ridge because it has been a while for people and even people who were following it at the time. You know, there was a lot at the time we didn't The internet can be both good and bad. I got to say that, you know, when Ruby Ridge happened, and then when you had the very long standoff there with a branch Davidians, it was a bit difficult to get information because the only thing you could get was mainstream media whitewashing of stuff.
And we did have a bulletin board that I was a part of at the time, but there was no Internet, right so people in the area were getting information and putting it out, and of course it wasn't verified, but of course we knew that the stuff coming from mainstream media was verified bs. So it was interesting to look at these things in real time. But go back and recount some of the things with Ruby Ridge, as you see, are parallels to what's happening.
Well, I'll started getting a thumbnail Ruby Rich here. It started when the when an undercover alcohol tobacco firearms atf agent and trapped Randy Weaver into selling a salt off shotgun. Uh it was a Then on August twenty first, nineteen ninety two, three US marshals dressed in ninja outfits and with face masks, illegally intrude on the Weaver's land and ambush Weaver's fourteen year old son and a twenty five
year old family friend, Kevin Harris. The marshals fired some machine guns at the at the UH at them and killed the boy's dog. A firefight and sued ensued a US Marshalls killed as the boy was running back home towards his family's cabin, a marshal, a Marshall shined in the back and killed him. Yeah, and it was a big issue then in the Justice Department confidential report?
Was it?
The Marshal Service never separated the different marshals who had killed the boy and been in the firefight and gave them thereby giving them a chance to create their own cover story, which was later approven to be completely false. But so the marshals gave a storyline to the FBI that made the FBI panic. The next day, FBI snipers arrived. Within an hour of them taking position, every adult in the Weaver cabin was either dead or severely wounded. Even
though they never fired a shot at the FBI. You had FBI sniper whore ugually shot Randy Weave in the back as he stood outside his shack and then fired a shot that killed Vicky Weaver by the cabin door as she was holding her baby. Now, the FBI initially said that they were justified in killing Vicky Weaver because she'd been in the front yard firing at the FBI helicopter. That was a complete scam and that fell apart, And so once that story fell apart, the FBI said they killed her accidentally.
So that sounds like Christine Holmes thing the agents were stuck in the snow. Oh yeah, yeah, just making this stuff up, the contempt for everybody. It reminds me of what Jake Tappert just said to one of these guys. The guy's going on on about what happened with this Alex pretty thing, and he goes, you do realize there's a video of this, don't you.
Well?
And that's the only reason why we've got a chance of help getting the truth on this, because if you think of the initial storyline that the Trump top officials put out on the Alex Preddy shooting, he had his non bill meter pistol out. He was a solding law enforcement and they were you know, he was there to mask for them, and you know, to the New York
Thomps credit. You know, within an hour of the Trump top officials saying them, you know, New York Times were saying, you know, actually there's videos, there's something completely different, and so many papers came around to that quite quickly. But you had the Trump people quite acclaimed to this absolute nonsense version that would whitewash the federal agents who killed Preddie. And it's like, okay, if you're gonna lie so brazenly, why should we trust you on anything that's right?
That's right exactly. Yeah.
It is brazen, it is arrogant. It's an insult to our intelligence, isn't it myself?
Well yeah it is, except for people on Twitter.
Yeah, because a lot of that intelligence because they're just you know, it was it was like, you know, but you know, but Stephen Miller said this, and you know, it was like it was handed down from Mount Sinai and it's like, well no, actually, you know.
It's that's that's that's not what that's not what happened. So you're calling them liars, Well.
Yeah, that's right. You got a better wordy than the liar. They were grossly mistaken.
Yeah.
But so.
An interesting thing with this was that there was there were a lot of people in the just Department who were very unhappy how it went down at Ruby Ridge, and there was an internal investigation that came out with
a five hundred page report. The government kept that secret, and early early nineteen ninety five, FBI Chief Lewis Free does a press conference and announces basically whitewashes all the FBI policy makers and the snipers for the killing of Vicky Weaver and everything else that happened in that case. So a couple of days later, I did a piece for the Wall Street Journal called no Accountability at the FBI.
A couple of weeks later, Lewis Free attacked me in the article and a response he wrote to the Wall Street Journal. And so, you know, it was funny. There was a friend of mine from Argentina who had done some work with and on the day that the Lewis Free letter condemning me came out and the Walls Journal, he calls it and says, well, I just wanted to say goodbye, because you know he's Argentina. You know I'm
not gonna be around very long. And I said, oh, you know, I can't imagine the federal officials ever doing anything improper like that.
But we're starting to approach that point. Perhaps I don't know.
There you go, but so so so I kept digging and I eventually got the a copy of that five hundred page confidential report, and I wrote about that for the Wall Street Journal, and I also wrote about the case for a Playboy and American Spectator. And I think my stories interrupt.
You a second. How did you get that five hundred page report? I mean, did they give that up with a four request?
No? No, no, they they did not give it up. Would Yeah, no, it was Look, it was not given up.
Okay, okay, you found it through some alternative sources.
Well I came into possession.
Okay, there you go.
How about that. That's the way, Yeah, like that, But no, it was Pentagon. And having that report it just completely destroyed the entire storyline the FEDS had created going back two years or more earlier. And it made a mockery of Lewis Freeze claims. And they finally, uh suspended some officials FBI and the in the top the top official of the FBI Violent Crimes a Major Offender Section plaid guilty was sent to prison for destroying evidence on the Ruby Ridge case.
I didn't know that. I didn't think there's some details. I didn't know. That's good.
Somebody went to jail.
It may yeah, it may have been the evidence that he destroyed would have showed that lan Horiucci intentionally killed Vicky Weaver, or maybe at didna. We don't know, because it was destroyed and the cover up was successful.
And they gave him a medal, didn't they lan Horyucci?
I don't know, but uh, there was a story which I did.
The recommendation or whatever.
Yeah, maybe I'm not sure, but what the Marshal Service did is wait until you know three and a half years after the marshals there killed Sandy Weaver and then gave their highest valor commendation to the marshals who had been at Ruby Ridge in early nineteen ninety six. And I wrote a Wall Street Journable story about that. There was a lot of pushback among some of their editors, but that's a different story. But uh no, it was
it was brazen that they were. It was it was a wide erb who was a US marshal, uh someone like that? I mean, it was a movie consultant, right, I mean, I'm not I'm uh uh. It'd be kind of rude to stop the interview and doing an internet search and Google searts. So but no, but so it was utterly brazen. But and it's just it's just interesting to see how many lies, i mean, lying and killing goes together like ham and eggs.
Yeah.
Yeah, you have that with the federal agencies, like you have it with the mafia. Yeah. So, and.
Well, certainly somebody's gonna kill somebody as serious as that crime is, they're gonna lie about it. And uh yeah, And so that's what we see when the government does it. You know, it's kind of interesting. We talk about the situation of Venezuela. One of the things that I've said is that, you know, Madison said, the weapons of defense abroad always become instruments of tyranny at home. And I think that applies to their attitudes towards killing people, their
attitudes towards war, whether it's foreign or domestic. I think once they have crossed that rubicon in their mind like they did with Venezuela, it's just a matter of time before they start doing it domestically as well. And I think it's kind of amazing too when you look at border patrol and immigration control and all the rest of the stuff. They're so focused on their political border, but they don't think there's any boundaries whatsoever in law for
what they do. So these are people who say, yeah, we got to have borders and so forth, but there's no boundaries for us. I mean Trump has even said that. You know, he was asked that question. He had no problem about saying, well, no, I don't think there's any restrictions that I have, any rules in any international rules or laws that I need. You, I'm constrained by my morality.
Oh, that was so comforting. It was just I mean, there are so many things which Trump says that which are just you know.
Yeah, that was a golden moment. You know, that's kind of like makes insane. Well, when the president does it, it is not illegal, you know, it's.
Yeah, but it's going back to those border patrol agents and the ice folks. I mean, it's almost as if we those federal agents need to have absolute power in order to preserve the American way of life.
Yeah.
Yeah, except that the American way of life and federal absolute power it did not used to go together.
So that's right. Well, we just had that a week or two ago.
We had some Israeli billionaire named SloMo and he said, We're going to destroy the First Amendment to preserve it. Right, So we got to destroy the rule of law in order to have America. We got to destroy the Constitution and everything else. Right, that's the logic behind what these people are telling us.
Yeah, I mean, and some of the Trump actions on freedom speech have been appalling, oh yeah, saying with a lot of the other things they had done. So but it's just part of what's fascinating to me. On going back to the parallels or Ruby Ridge and the killing on Saturday, what were their rules of engagement for the
DHS agents? There was there was there was a video I saw online Bobino was talking to the agents giving them a pep talk, and he was telling them if anybody touches you, then you know, take them down, arrest them, you know, just you know, do maximum penalties for him. And this is the same attitude. Christy Noms said something similar that if some if somebody, if some protests really
touches you, boom, that's assaults so on and so forth. Well, you've seen the videos of these a lot of the federal agents being super aggressive with people down aasching them, assaulting, spraying the face for no reason. Why the pepper spray. I mean, this is such an absolute disparity. Instead there's a conduct. You know, how are people supposed to be free when federal agents have the right to beat them?
That's right.
I remember years ago there was a protest at Berkeley, I don't even remember what it was for, and you had all these people that were, you know, setting cross leg on the ground, and you had this fat cop go along with pepper spray right in front of their faces, just spraying, and that outraged everybody, and rightfully so it's like, what are you doing that for? And yet you know we have the same situation happening now with these Ice agents.
There's that one picture where they had this person pinned to the ground, A guy puts the spray can right in his face or her face and sprays them with that. There was another one after the shooting of Renee Good. I've played that multiple times video I played multiple times on the show where you got this guy going around kicking they put on they chucked up the sidewalk with her name and things like that, and then put some
candles there and you probably saw that. He goes on kicking the candles over and guy says, what are you doing? What are you doing?
Do you know what?
And the guy gets right up in his face and you know, it gets like about an inch from actually hitting him with his body, says get back, get back, get back, you know, and keeps pushing him back. Just thugish, schoolyard behavior, just beyond belief, trying to go the guy into touching him so he can go off on this guy. He and all the other ones around there. It's going to be a gang bang if he just lays a finger on this guy. And he's doing everything he can
to provoke that. And we've seen them coming up to people, knocking phones out of their hands because it's somehow. It's now a rule that if you are photographing the police, which you have a right to do. Supreme Court has said that over and over. I believe it's a Supreme court. There's been multiple court cases. I don't know if it got up to the Supreme Court or not, but you have a right to film the police. We all know that that should be there, whether the law says that
or not. But they come up to people and threaten them, threatened to put them in a database, knock the phone out of their hands, and all the rest of this stuff.
Yep.
Uh.
The well, the the Trump DHS has been very explicit that there is no right to video tape federal agents in public. There that that to video tape them, even when they're wearing masks, yes to them and uh and uh, and that that is considered to be a crime and the federal agents are entitled to use force to shut
that down. And as you mentioned, there's been a Supreme Court has not made this explicit, but there have been a number of federal Appeals Court rulings that said, look, you know, people have got to write to video tape the police, uh in public. I mean there's there's a certain point where the video tape could become two a grass server too interfering. But I mean there are you know, there's lots of the uh d Trump supporters would like to have a five mile zone of no cameras.
Yeah, I guess are they going to go around Jim and are they going to arrest Flock and Amazon for the ring cameras and stuff, because we got cameras everywhere in our society now, whether you like it or not, and most of us aren't wearing masks when that's happening as well.
Well, And it's just it's it's it's interesting how you have. You've got two sides here. One, you've got total secrecy for the FEDS, they've got their face masks, nobody's got no age, has got a name, and people got no right to know the name of the agents that killed somebody. And on the flip side, you've got total surveillance. You got these these ages going around and sticking cameras in people's faces and saying that that that they're a face and the name will be in a database.
Now.
Yeah, so the terrorists or whatever protests or.
Database somebody does that to me, I tell them spell my name right, let me give it to you just in case.
Yeah, I mean, it's it's kind of late for me to worry about.
Being a NOO data basis. That's right.
You know, their society, I guess, Jim, we could look at it. Their their model for society is a one way mirror, right, you know where they are On the opposite side, of the mirror. You know, you look at it and you don't see them at all. You you only see yourself that's there, as they as they're putting you in the databases that are there, but you're not.
Allowed to see anything they have.
Yeah, and it's it's important to keep in mind. Donald Trump has often said he's going to make America great again, but he never says he's gonna make America free again or make America constitutional. And Trump's idea of America great and it seems to be focused on the presidential power.
Yes, yes, yeah, he's going to make all power. It's going to make it's gonna make America a monarchy again.
Well, and what's appalling to me is you got so many conservatives who are cheerleading for that. Yeah, I'm just thinking, are you that here historically ill literate exactly, But to ask that question is to answer it.
So, yeah, what are you trying to conserve at this point? You know, we've had the terms neo con We need to come up with something for the Trump Trump cons or something like that which says that they don't adhere to any principles of individual liberty or economic liberty or the rule of law whatever, that's.
A Trump con.
We're just here for loyalty to Trump because that gets us jobs.
It gets us money.
The highest freedom, Yeah, that's right, that is the highest free having the opportunity to obey Donald Trump's orders. And it's like and it's it's unfortunate because Trump has some good ideas, He's had some good policies. I had a story in New York Post last Sunday on Trump's talking about banning the red light cameras and the speed cameras in Washington, d C. I mean, those things are an absolute menace. They caused so many accents, They've killed people.
So I didn't see that he said that. I would agree with that, but I don't think that he'll do it.
I don't think Trump had not said that. But if someone in his transportation apartment, oh okay to ban those bend those cameras, and yeah, it's it's a great example of how how the government can be a scoundrel because what happens is you have those red light cameras put in in order to maximize revenue. What they do is shorten the yellow light. Yeah, oh yeah, absolutely, and then cause a lot of accidents and fatalities.
So yeah, I agree.
Yeah, I was surprised because wait a minute, does Trump ever even drive a car?
You know, this is one of the things when you.
See no, no, I mean, and this is.
About this.
You know, this is a fascinating angle on it too, because I assume that Trump has had bodyguards going back for the last thirty or forty years.
Yeah.
Sure, and his absolute contempt for Second Amendment rights. Yes, of anybody going to their protest is supposed to disarm and put themselves of the mercy of the feds. I mean, this is such And you.
Can see that with that other elitist billionaire Scott Bessant, who gets a free pass. We're working for Soros from the MAGA people for some reason. And when he's saying, you know, uh, I can't imagine anybody taking a gun to a protest or whatever. And it's like he said, I've been at protest. I didn't take guns.
I thought.
I said to my wife, I said, they were probably protesting. Bessant, that's a good point. Probably I get to Wall Street or something.
Yeah, I mean, I've had the experience of being a protest where there were guns, in protests where the guns were banned, and it's like, you know, eh, it's life. It's like, I mean, guns are part of the American way of life, and it's also a symbol of American freedom.
So that's right.
Yeah.
I've said this multiple times on airs and said he said that.
I said.
The safest protest I was at was a protest at the Alamo where they were trying to get the carry laws changed in Texas. And you have hundreds of people with the rifles slung over their shoulders and police left everybody alone. It's a great deterrent to violence.
You know, Well, this is it.
I mean, the the it was fascinating to see the absolute panic by the federal agents as soon as someone says gun gon gun. Oh, we got to shoot him ten times. Yeah, I mean that was an absolute disgrace.
Yeah.
They were beating the hell out of this guy who THEYD knocked to the ground unjustifiably, and then they panicked and killed him. And it's like, how on the hell anybody can uphold that kind of behavior or see it as a model or say, yeah, but he was a bad guy because he voted for Tim Waltz. You know whatever, I don't care.
That's right, And I don't care about what happened, you know, in that video from the BBC that was released on Wednesday went viral on Wednesday. I really that's not relevant to this particular case. First of all, said, look, you can see the gun is stuck in the in the back of his waistband there in his back. It's like, yeah, and he didn't pull it out, right, So what's the deal. They didn't kill him either, you know, so so if they could deal with that.
Then yeah, it's totally appalling to see Trump talking as if anyone, anybody with a gun should be presumed guilty, especially if they've got a second magazine. And how many bullets did the cops carry.
You know?
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Yeah.
Well I was at the I was at the Bundy Ranch stand off there.
On the ground.
Oh that was a great one.
Yeah, it was.
It was a big win because what was good about that it wasn't just a protest.
They had a specific thing that they wanted.
They said, we want the cows back, you know, so that you stole from us, Okay, and so it was very interesting. But one of the things that came up in the aftermath of that when they came after several people and sent some of them to jail. They had a picture of a guy who was up above on the uh, on the road, yeah, trying to present him as a sniper, and he was down. Uh, this is one of the protesters side, and he was down behind this concrete barrier there, you know, road road barrier, and
so was a woman behind him. And so in the court case they said, so, why is the defense attorney They were trying to make this guy out to be the aggressor and the only threat that was there. And the defense attorney says, so why were you bending downside? Sorry, you can't ask that question. You know, obviously he's hiding behind the concrete barrier because they were threatening to shoot us, right, And they said, you can't ask that question.
Well, there's a that's the case I wrote about for USA Today and it's fascinating a cross of that case. And part of the reason there were armed people there was was the Bundee's fear the FBI put snipers around their house to kill them.
Yes, oh they did, Ridge, Yeah, they did.
They had There was actually some of the guys there cleaned out a sniper is nest. One night there and that's interesting.
Yeah, okay, I wasn't aware of that, but I know the there was a federal judge. Her first name was Gloria, Hispanic lady. But so the so the Feds, I think in the retrial of maybe the bundies themselves, the Feds finally admitted that yes, they did have snipers around the land or the home of the Abundanes, and so there was a real threat, whereas what the what the Obama people had done was trying to portray them and then
the Trump people as well. Uh, it's betrayed those protesters as just kind of complete liars on trustworthy troublemakers because they were saying they were FBI snipers around their house and of course that's nonsense. But when they when it finally came out, the federal judge was so furious, I think that she just threw the entire case out of court.
That's right.
They would have hung all of them. I mean, you know, if there had been there was a BLM agent who became a whistleblower, well.
He was great, he was great, and if it had gone.
If it hadn't been for him, that judge would have railroaded because they did already send several people to prison for long prison stances, and I didn't follow up on that to see if they got a pardon with it or not. But basically, with the whistleblower's information, she realized that they'd been lying to her and that got her angry, and so she acquitted them with you know, prejudice or
what so they couldn't come after them again. But she had been really rough in terms of shutting down obvious questions like that, you know, why is this person hiding a crouched down behind a concrete burier like that, and other people who didn't have guns were doing the same thing, and it was simply the answer is because I was there heard them yelling get back, you know, disperse, we're going to shoot, you know, and they had their guns pointed at us.
Wow. Yeah, well, well it's pretty just good that. It's good that didn't make you lose faith in the system.
I didn't have any faith in the system to start with, so yeah, I didn't lose any more faith in the system. Well, no, I don't have any faith in the system at all.
It's a.
That's great, Well, tell us what you're up to. And I see a book there in the back.
Last Rights. Is that a recent publication that you have?
Oh, that's the most recent book I've got, Last Rights. It's an update of all the different government crimes and abuses I did Loss Rights over thirty years ago, and Last Rights is how things have gotten a lot worse since nineteen ninety four when the Loss Rights came out.
I was scraped in the bottom of the barrel. Now at this point, aren't we It's.
Well, well, there's a lot of good examples to write about, but I don't know how much good it does. So I've got the books I've got. I write for various think tanks, Meazies, libertarians to a Future Freedom Foundation. I do suffer New York posts. I do for some magazines. I've done some stuff recently for a reason, So you know, here and there, just just trying to hustle and keep positive cash flow.
And again, when you look at somebody who I've never seen more open contempt for the First Amendment than Donald Trump, I think he's surpassed Richard Nixon on this.
Well.
Ten that he's got against a Wall Street journal that you've written for.
Oh yeah, I mean Trump and his lawsuits is like ten billion dollars because you said I sent a birthday card. Yeah, here's the freaking card. Okay, Well yeah, but you know, but I'm still suing you. It's like, I mean, there's uh, this is called slapsuits.
What's the it's an actatategic.
Lawsuit against public participation, I think is how the acronym goes. But Trump has done that so much. Oh yeah, and so I mean, uh, okay, I mean one of the things was most the soundings is that I think Trump was suing sixty minutes because of how they edited an interview with Kamala Harris.
I know, I know.
And and you had you had the White House Cress sectory threatening a massive lawsuit. If was that CBS did any editing of Trump's uh, Trump's interview or with them recently. It's kind of like, so editing is now a crime or what?
Yeah, don't do any editing. Yeah, everybody has to do editing.
I mean, the.
You got a time you got to fit this into.
So yeah, I mean, if I Trump was sparded, he would realize he needs an editor as much as anybody his good lord, he I mean, you know, going on for two hours, it's like he's inspired by Fidel Castro.
That's absolutely right. Yeah, so you got your ticket yet for the Millennia premiere that's going to be today, So buy a ticket.
You can have a private screening because you'll be the only person in the theater.
Well, this is this is gonna be interesting. I mean, I hope that there's not a war to distract how the movie does badly.
Mm hmm.
Well, it's kind of interesting. You know, we're talking about the law suits about don't talk about me and Jeffrey Epstein things like that, because they threatened a lot of people Milania did with lawsuits, as well as Donald Trump. And I think it's gonna be kind of interesting what happens with Michael wolf because they had threats of lawsuits for people who are repeating what Michael Wolfe had said, essentially that about Jeffrey Epstein, and I thought, well, why
don't they sue him. He's the one who is a source of information. So they threatened him with that, and he said, Okay, that's it, I'm going to sue you. So he's kind of kicked that off. It'll be interesting to see how that develops. I think we'll get more from out of that. Then we will out of any of the Epstein documents that are setting on Pam Bondi's desk purportedly.
Well, it's just it's it's so brazen that the Trump folks have got total contempt for disclosure, contempt for federal law, contempt for their president's own promises, and the top law enforcement officials promising, and it's like, Okay, it's almost as if they have decided that they don't need any credibility with most Americans and almost all the media because they're so powerful, they're so wonderful, or that they can get
away with anything. So it's that's Nixon like in a way, as you said earlier.
Yeah, it is absolutely.
Well, you kind of got to start with Roger Stone, who's got a tattoo of Nixon on his back.
And that's one of the things though thought was me.
I worked there at Info Wars for a while, and you know, Rogers got that tattoo of Richard Nixon.
How does that square with the idea of being libertarian? I never could figure that one out.
So well, yeah, I mean it's I won't I will not ask you any questions about a former employer in his position on the shooting.
Oh yeah, exactly, Alex Jones, It's been disgraceful.
I tweeted about that.
I got a lot of people angry at me because one I said, I said, I can't believe I ever worked for this guy, but he completely flipped on the police state. I mean he did documentary after documentary about now he is all cheering it, you know, as as well as foreign warriors. I mean, he's just you know, money talks, I guess, and we can kind of assume who's paying him.
You know. Wow, it's truly amazing.
Oh, I might pay off his next libel lawsuit losing.
Yeah, that's right, that's right.
Well, Jim is great talking to you as always, And again the book is last, right, so that's your most recent one, and people get that anywhere books are sold, I'm sure, and they can find your your website which will have I guess links to any of the articles that since you write for so many different outlets, they can go to Jim Bovar and find your op ed pieces there in your articles. That's the best place for them to find you.
Right.
So yeah, Hey, thanks so much for having me on, Thanks for your kind words, and thanks for keeping up the fight.
Well, thank you and thank you for all the work in the research that you have turned up. I've done some very valuable research with that. Thank you, Jim, appreciate it. Have a good day. Well that's it for today's broadcast. This is my grandson here and we're going to all try to stay warm. He's got a special penguin suit here. I want to thank everybody who has supported us this month.
We're about seventy five percent. But we're going to go buy this afternoon Friday and check the po box again and we will update the gas gauge to let you know where we wound up. But like Aaron, I see yah. But thank you so much for joining us. Have a great weekend, and again, be careful with all the ice. I the common man. They created common Core and dumbed down our children. They created common Past to track and control us. Their Commons project to make sure the commoners
own nothing and the communist future. They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us, while they hide everything from us.
It's time to turn that around.
And expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at the Davidnightshow dot com. Thank you for listening, Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. D Davidnightshow dot com